Leonard Boswell (0.00 / 0)

I dunno ... he did endorse Hillary Clinton last week.  But I doubt that has anything to do with it.

Go figure.  Maybe he just voted that way because he has a conscience.

---

by: paulhogarth @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 00:06:38 AM CST

Perhaps his hand slipped (0.00 / 0)

and he pressed the wrong button.

Or maybe he's been drinking.

---

by: meekermariner @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 00:27:50 AM CST

Unlikely his hand slipped (0.00 / 0)

but it is a very real possibility that at least one showed up at the end of the vote, was mixed up about which vote they were on, and was going to vote the opposite way on the other vote.  If you look at the Congressional Record, you'll see that, a few times a week or so, there's some member submitting a statement explaining that they voted the wrong way.

John McCain

---

by: djm84 @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:29:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Bobby Rush is AWFUL (0.00 / 0)

I used to live in Bobby Rush's district in Chicago, which is a curious one demographically.  It covers a huge portion of Chicago's South Side, which means it contains both the incredibly white/elitist (but liberal) University of Chicago AND hundreds of thousands of desperately poor black people.  Rush himself is a former Black Panther who has represented the district forever. 

He also happens to be a corrupt, sell-out sack of shit, but he's basically been unstoppable.  For example, he "secured" millions of dollars from AT&T to build a technology center in one neighborhood of his district.  A couple years later, he came out strongly against net neutrality.  Using corporate money to buy off your constituents while screwing them over in the long run is a pretty succinct definition of "selling out".

Bringing home bacon like that to the district, combined with Chicago machine politics, combined with the long history of paternalistic condescension from whites to blacks in that district, makes it virtually impossible to get rid of Rush.  Just ask Barack Obama, whose first run for office was against Rush in the 2000 Democratic primary; Rush cleaned his clock (incidentally, I think this explains a lot about the Barack Obama we see today).

So I'm inclined to believe his vote switching is best explained by good old fashioned corruption, unfortunately.  Would that we could do something about it like they're doing with Lipinski now.

Yes we Kang

---

by: I Voted for Kodos @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 00:54:24 AM CST

Daily Pressure from "moderates" (0.00 / 0)

There are people lobbying Dems to be "tough but smart" on national security every day of the week. Brookings has been around forever.

New kid on the block is the Center for a New American Security which, if you follow the money and people is a front for Hillary Clinton's  foreign policy apparatus. They see themselves as the Democratic answer to PNAC.

Well funded and organized, these and other lobbyists qua think tanks that are winning the argument that Democrats cannot afford to look weak on national security for the good of the party and of the country.


Visit DebateScoop for political candidate debate news and analysis.

---

by: demondeac @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 02:33:08 AM CST

Links don't work (0.00 / 0)

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:43:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Black Agenda Report (0.00 / 0)

and the CBC monitor both basically despise Artur Davis.

I think he wants to be governor, so he votes way to the right. In the mold of Harold Ford Jr., I guess.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:40:54 AM CST

Davis vs. Ford (0.00 / 0)

Beat me to it.  Good point.

Very similar voting records.  Davis' current Progressive Punch score (81.41) is a bit better than the 77.5 posted by Harold Ford but is helped by current session votes where Nancy Pelosi has carefully eliminated all the hard choice votes that used to separate liberal /progressive from moderate/conservative Democrats.  Davis is scoring a 90 for this year.  He was in the upper 70s on the career scale last year.

And yes, both Davis and Ford are young highly ambitious guys who are well to the right of their districts.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:59:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

As a Congressional Candidate, I met Artur Davis at an event. (0.00 / 0)

I listened carefully to him as he talked in a social setting. At the time he was, and I think still is, the DCCC recruiter.

Although he was there in support of Larry Kissell NC-08 candidate, I did mention to him that I too was a candidate in NC-03. He almost laughed in my face.

He did not know my name and I guess that was his basis for being so high minded.

He seemed very impressed with himself. I was not impressed by him. He seemed self absorbed and about as political as I have seen. Not to mention rude and Condescending.

Congressman Brad Miller was also there. We should elect him to the U.S. Senate.

http://www.MarshallA...

---

by: Marshall Adame @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:05:34 AM CST

No Hill Pressure ?!? (0.00 / 0)

Hundreds of thousands of voters are telling their Representatives to cut off funds for Iraq.

They are doing it by email through Democrats.com, PDAmerica.org, USAlone.com, CodePinkAlert.org, and many other progressive web sites.

They are also doing it face-to-face when their Representatives dare to show up in the communities they "represent."

Matt, how exactly do you define "Hill Pressure?" There are several groups who send experienced anti-war lobbyists to the Hill, including Progressive Democrats of America, Code Pink, and AFSC.

The only thing that's missing at the moment are paid TV and newspaper ads by Moveon - which frankly never made a difference when they were running.

The war will end when

(1) dozens/hundreds of voters in districts represented by pro-war Reps get themselves organized to mobilize the vast anti-war majorities

(2) they find ways to put enough pressure on their Reps to scare them through primary challenges, donor pressure, and/or editorial pressure

If OpenLeft wants to end the war, it should devote some time to promoting these two goals.

---

by: bob fertik @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:04:33 AM CST

hill pressure (0.00 / 0)

I'm relying on what members and their staffs have told me about antiwar Hill presence, which they say they don't feel anymore.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:12:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Pelosi's Numbing Cream? (0.00 / 0)

Why are we looking at omnibus spending bills as a measure of opposition to the occupation of Iraq?  The House has held votes specifically on occupation funding, including March 23, 2007, (10 no votes), and May 10, 2007, (12 no votes).  I agree that we have to look at the other votes too and hold these so-called representatives accountable for every single occupation funding vote, even those with lots of other items included.  But they provide an imperfect measure of willingness to oppose occupation funding.  We have in recent months seen 92 representatives claim they oppose occupation funding, while watching almost all of them vote for more of it.  Those 92 are arguably significantly closer than the 142 to doing what is actually needed: demanding new leadership, insisting that Pelosi bring no more bills to fund the occupation to the floor.  Perhaps this will be possible now that Pelosi has admitted that she's spent the past year fantasizing about Republicans joining her on a bill to end their Fuhrer's war.  Dodd's example of filibustering the telecom immunity may even sink in.  We only need one Boxer or Feingold to step up and filibuster the war money for us to be able to force the prez candidate senators on board.  Then it's a whole new world and we start talking about blocking, rather than passing, bills.  We stop counting noses and start demanding leadership and honesty. 

---

by: davidswanson @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:17:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]